FutbolHead

If you want to see customer support as good or better, as well as an awesome game, check out www.galciv.com, by Stardock, another indy company. Excellent 4X turn based game getting rave reviews.

Automatically receive the 2nd edition free... now that is awesome! Thanks Battlefront!

Thanks for the more constructive reply. He has XP and the latest GF4 drivers. They reduced the problem, but did not fix it entirely. We shall see what the patch does. Thanks again.

Well, considering he's using XP, which hasn't been out for years, that's not the problem. He has recently updated his Nvidia GF4 drivers to latest, and the reduced the problem, but did not fix it. And fixing the game, may well fix his problems.

Is there an ETA on the first patch? My friend and I can't play because the game keeps crashing on his end during orders phase just before or when he presses go button.

Anyone had this problem? BF aware of something like this? The game runs fine on my machine, no problems that I can detect. However, on my friends machine (AMD xp2000+, 512 ram, GF4 TI4600, SB Audigy) the game crashes after every few turns or so during the orders phase, usually right around the time he presses the GO button. He updated to newest GF drivers and it still happened. It happens in MP and SP. ?????

I have a Toshiba Satellite 5105-S901. I can handle ANYTHING I throw at it so far, including CMBB. With a 2.0 ghz P4M, 512 PC2100 ram, and a GF4 440 GO chip with 64 megs onboard, it's a great gaming laptop. Granted, it came at a pretty penny though, but I highly recommend considering the Toshiba Satellite line. Additional: The one downside to this laptop is battery staying power. I can get about 1.5 to 2 hours out of it max. If you looking for something Truly mobile (i.e. battery life important), you may consider other models. I have a car adapter and the AC adapter, so I can really use it anywhere I need to, but other may prefer more "on the battery" usage. This is essentially a mobile desktop. [ October 02, 2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: FutbolHead ]

Mine's simple enough. I like to watch soccer. Teams I like: DC United (MLS), Real Madrid, Holland National Team, and of course, the kick-ass/take-names US Women's National Team!

I always love it when people hope that someone's project will fail. Rather than hoping for another enjoyable war game, something to give competition and drive the market to improve, let's hope it sucks so we can in some perverse way get some negative satisfaction. Makes real sense to me. Does this line of thinking seem backwards to anyone else other than me?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks: Does anybody have a proof that tanks (even fast-turreted ones) in WWII rotated their hulls to face every pesky infantry unit, that appeared in LOS??? [This message has been edited by ciks (edited 01-12-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, since that isn't represented in the game, it hardly matters. I haven't observed tanks change facing to every infantry unit which appears in it's LOS. . <----- That's the point that you missed. The point I was making, is that while one camp was offering that decisions were made based on historical training information, the other camp was saying, but we disagree, we don't like it, without offering contradicting evidence or source material.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Henri wrote: (snip I would disagree with your summation for the following reasons: (snip) © A thousand pictures of German and Allied armor in the midst of combat can be shown with vehicles firing on targets with their turrets aimed at the target, and their hulls aimed substantially in a different direction. To me it would seem then that I must conclude in all of these many many cases, unless the photographer happened by coincidence to catch the picture at the moment just "prior" to the vehicle turning its hull toward the target, that the voluminous photographic evidence would seem to repudiate the logical presumptions being made that "German Training doctrine", equated to a commonality of scope of sufficient magnitude to presume it was something that was automatically subscribed to. So much so, and to the extent then that it would also automatically apply to that of American, British, and Commonwealth armored tactical theory and training, as well as commonly applied battlefield practice. It would seem to me then, that the reasons for the new change are based upon the idea that this may be the right and proper thing to do, possibly of a presumed logical extention, and possibly because it provides a fix to a game problem, and possibly for a good many other reasons including the popularity of the idea. But not because of historical evidence of a commonality of scope that it was applicable to all Nationalities, and all turreted vehicles, in battlefield practice as an automatic tactical reaction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only thing that invalidates my summation at this particular point in the thread is that you have finally offered up evidence to support your view, evidence that you suggest opposes the other side's opinion. The problem with your photographic evidence is this. While it may be "voluminous", that only means something when put into perspective of the whole. How much combat is actually represented by ratio in pictures? How many photos are propaganda (See our great war machine in action)? These are nit-picky points, granted, but they have some validity. Additionally, I disagree with you reduction of the significance of training doctrine. Yes, quite often in stressful situations, human beings don't do what they are supposed to do. This is represented quite nicely by the AI. However, when people aren't "freaking out", when they are acting on instinct or are reacting without thinking, that is heavily influenced by training. Generally, it's training that keeps people alive. Acting in contradiction to sound training gets people killed in combat. You do seem to have valid concerns when you suggest the American tactics as well as other nations could or should be represented differently in terms of this AI feature. But my main point was this, at least this time you have offered some evidence to support your view / contradict the other view rather than just saying you don't agree with it.

What I have gathered reading through this thread is this; The side in agreement with tanks changing their facing and not just rotating the turret have based this on historical information that they have read. The side that disagrees with the "new" way tanks work admits that they have no data to support their view, they just think or feel it's wrong. This thread is on 7 pages now with this kind of argument?

Well, after buying Squad Leader, playing it, and returning it, I must say I'm dissappointed as well. I did not have the high expectations that others had because of the name association, but I did hope it would be at least a better version "Soldiers at War". It's not even that in my opinion. I know I staunchly defended Hasbro's right to produce what they wished with the name they legally purchased, and I still stand by that principle. But as many of you predicted, they failed miserably with this product and will no doubt take an economic hit for it as is how the market is supposed to work. Bombs away on me if you like, but I'm straight up enough to come in here and own up to what I said. Later....

Alas, with the TCPIP update, we see a time drawing close at hand when I will be able to properly submerse into the 'pool in earnest. Then we shall see which of the squires and which of the knights shall hand me humiliation or manicure the nails of my hamsters. Mind you, my hamsters were trained by the best of shrews, and their nails are long. A manicure was never so dangerous.

Thanks for the update. Can't wait for MP CM.

The cesspool has split into to two factions. Geez, what is the world coming to when even the scum of the earth can't meld. I'm sure if Rodney King were here he would say "Can't we all just eviscerate each other in unity?"

Sorry to hear about your dad. Take your time, it's more important. Wish him well. F

I may not have known this thread long, but I certainly knew it carnally. R.I.P.

For the record, I don't have my panties in a bunch. Once someone explained to me what this place was about, I realized that it was not to be taken seriously, not to get upset at the taunts or insults. And likewise, I have not meant any of the ones I have posted. And when I realized this was primarily for PBEM'ers, I admitted my error, albeit in a somewhat sarcastic manner. I'm not trolling, nor any am I trying to "really" piss anyone off. But clearly, my style doesn't seem to mesh well with other people on here. That being the case, I will leave the thread "for the good of the 'pool" if that's what is wanted by even just one person who will state that. But don't accuse me of being a troll. And if the "Silent Treatment" is to be selected as a means of getting rid of me, I can assure you, I am nothing if not tenacious. There will be a lot of me to have to ignore. I only "cop" this "tude" because of the troll accusation when I was legitimately trying to join the 'pool. So what says the 'pool? Stay or leave?

My utmost apologies for the multiple posting in the Peng thread. Only one was intended, clearly a poorly received attempt at humor. I kept getting a "Connection Timed Out" message and I believed my posts were not going through. My bust. But to the 12 year olds who elected fly off the handle and insult me for making a mistake, your opinion of me lacks merit and is worthless. Thanks for sharing it just the same. I guess you guys don't know the meaning of "benefit of the doubt" and have not read other posts that I have posted on here in clear contradiction to your assertions. Such is life I suppose. Futbolhead

I hope some of you recoqnize the incredible irony (given the previous thread about computer SL) of the fact that even the venerable Avalon Hill tried to CAPITALIZE on their own Squad Leader name by making a TOTALLY DIFFERENT type of game and using the Squad Leader name to do so. In clear letters at the bottom of the box of UP FRONT! it says: "The Squad Leader Card Game" [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-30-2000).]

It just dawned on me what computer SL really reminds me of (okay, I'm slow). Up Front! Did any of you play the card game based on SL by Avalon Hill? I liked it. It was called Up Front! and it was a kind of abstract representation of the board game, using only one or two squads with each squad member and leader individually represented. (Lets see, still on the shelf somewhere....yep, it's still there) Perhaps Hasbro would have been better off using that name on the box instead. Maybe they wouldn't have ticked off so many "grogs". [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-30-2000).]

Los: Design no, affiliation yes. Perhaps you missed the long thread already discussing this issue. SuperTanker: You mean you can't judge a book by it's cover? I was merely attempting to point out yet another piece of evidence of how Hasbro IS NOT trying to dupe anyone into thinking this is the board game on computer. Different game, some similar concepts, different merits and undoubtedly different faults. I will judge it based on how it's designed and how it plays, not on how I think they should have made it. But of course, I will keep playing CM too. Especially when TCPIP is an option. Actually, given the two titles, I think Combat Mission fits what the computer SL will be better than what it is, and vice versa. Just my personal opinion. And no, I'm not trying to bait anyone by blaspheming the hollowed CM name. [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-30-2000).]

If you haven't seen the cover picture of Squad Leader by Microprose yet, it doesn't appear to be at all similar to the lettering or look of SL or ASL. There is a cover pic on EB's web site.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: You're right, we do not agree. Neither do the folks from the now defunct Microprose I'll bet, but I doubt we'll hear from them. I will let Hasbro make my point for me, since I already have put a lot of thought into what they do, and it might be legal, and aboveboard in the business sense, (an oxymoron btw,) but I don't have to like it, and you don't have to listen to me say so, after all, this is intended for those sitting on the fence. I do apologize for the "in the biz" crack, that was bad manners on my part. But I still hold to the rest of my stance, and as for judging a game before it's out, anybody here willing to buy a product from GT Interactive? You should be able to find many of those titles at Wal Mart, and if they are what you want, why,more power to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Microprose is a subsidiary of Hasbro (ironically). It's not defunct. Your argument could be made that it may as well be though. GT Interactive, I bought Unreal. Great game. I skipped Unreal Tournament thus far, but I may buy Unreal 2 from them. Don't know much about their other games. Perhaps there's history you are referring to from other games in which I didn't have an interest. As far as your opinion goes, yes, I do have to listen to it if you wish to express on this forum and I read it. I'm not here to stiffle that expression either. I couldn't if I wanted to and I don't. I enjoy reading about what other people think. It gives you great insight about those people. But what I do is challenge are those opinions expressed when they appear to fly in the face of facts. Here's where I insert an opinion. I believe most of the die-hard ASL'ers on here FEEL betrayed and that is what has caused such contempt for the game and for Hasbro. I believe they could have titled it many other things and still would likely have received ridicule from that same community. Combat Leader, Squad Combat, etc. etc. etc. Then we would be reading complaints about how Hasbro bought up the rights and was not doing anything with the title. I see no favorable scenario for Hasbro "winning over" the die hard wargaming community. They are too family oriented. But that doesn't mean they won't find a niche market amongst the rest of their customer base. Some will like, some won't. Hasbro won't go the way of other companies even if this game craps out. They have many other pursuits to keep them afloat and viable. They may back out of the PC game market if they do poorly with several games, but the whole company won't go down. I'll lay off. I think I have establish my position with enough facts and I'm willing to see what the future holds for the game and for Hasbro. What I would hate to see is a good game go down over sentimentalism. I would rather see it pass or fail on the merits of the product, not simply the name association. If I were to find fault with Hasbro at all at this point, it would be for not considering that as a factor. There is a flip side to this whole issue. I'm not putting much money on the gambling table that this will come to fruition, but I believe in possibilities. What if a segment of the mainstream market comes to like CSL and that results in a few more people seeking out the real SL. It's a long shot, but it's a "the glass is half-full" perspective, one which has been overlooked. (The "That's it I quit" parody - Futbolheads meager attempt to insert levity: Subtitled - "I'm not always an a--hole, just when I open my mouth") That's it I quit. I'm going back to Chess, the real wargame. The true, traditional, original wargame. No one argues that a pawn should have been made stronger or that the queen has too much power. They don't cry about the fact that pieces were never intended to be made out of wood or steel or marble. If someone comes out with a chess set that has purple and yellow squares there isn't a massive outcry that chess is coming to an end. The rules are simple and no one argues about them anymore. The worst you hear is people saying "My chess engine is stronger than yours." The intellectual equivalent of comparing, how shall we say, "member" sizes. Yea, like the average Chess player can beat Fritz 6 or HIARCS or Rebel Century. They haven't even made a good wargame since chess. Simplistic design, simple rules, immense strategic possibility. (Okay, so it wasn't that funny. That's why I don't guit my day job.)